This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following statement "The Panas have converted to Christianity in large numbers and prospered financially " is found nowhere in the referenced material. This is not true and not statistics has being referenced. I like to remove this misleading statement. If you have objections, please let us know why.
-- Indiancrusader ( talk) 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs sources that comply with WP:RS & also its obvious povs removed.- Bharatveer ( talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bharatveer, please read the report from NCM, a government entity. You cannot get a better POV. Also, each statemet is refered. Can you please indicate which sources do not comply with WP standard? Recordfreenow ( talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
i believe i've fixed the POV, so i'm removing the tag. if you feel it should remain, please list specifiv pov violations so they can be fixed. thanks. -- vvarkey ( talk) 09:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Tripping Nambiar - if you feel there is POV violation, please list specific instances so they can be fixed. Thanks. Also, the ref you added does not match the text you added to Christmas violence. -- vvarkey ( talk) 11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The article as it stands almost entirely confirms with the views of Christian community. Views of the Hindu community/groups should be added to balance the article.-- Vikramsingh ( talk) 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, if the writing is on-the-wall for VHP then how am I supposed to build a NPOV? There is unequivical evidence in VHP's involvement in the violence. I would love to find information that proves contrary to the fact. Recordfreenow ( talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The NMC is governmental; but it has only Minority members. This sway is relevant and ought to be mentioned. Jobxavier ( talk) 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this page should be merged with 2008 Orissa violence. It clears up the notability for that article as well. Perhaps a new name can be "Communal violence in Orissa" or "2007-2008 Orissa violence" (albeit the latter might change). What do others feel? Lihaas ( talk) 10:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be "Communal violence in Orissa". having the year in the name does not make sense anymore. the incident from 1999 should also be included. I hear what recordfreenow is saying about search engines, but not sure that should be out concern. anyways, is'nt it possible for the old title to point to the new page? not sure how that works.-- vvarkey ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected as per the source cited.- Bharatveer ( talk) 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Lihaas, please see my response to each section. Thanks. Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) the picture with the caption "The secular fabric of India is in flames during Orissa communal violence" is a little out place. It puts the page out of whack. in like with other wikipages, perhaps it would be better to move it to the top right so the contents table can be where the picture is.
And while we're at it: "The secular fabric of India is in flames during Orissa communal violence" This caption is a little POV too (not religious pov, but secular liberal POV). Why the editorial-like comment of the "secular fabric." Perhaps something like "Violence and burining during the ..."
Furthermore, what's the wording for the picture that says "Christian girl who suffered during August 2008 violence in Orissa" How do we know for certainty its a christian girl? Perhaps one can say "victim of communal rioting" (now, don't get me wrong, the other picture of the burned church is fair enough, there's a cross and it's proof as it is) Lihaas ( talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Lihaas, Within the section WP:EL. Please indicate which aspects under section "Links normally to be avoided" do not qualify under policy? All the external links are relevant for the article. Please discuss before random decisions to delete. These are efforts being put. You are welcome to add any reliable sources that qualify. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Recordfreenow ( talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright Lihaas, let's look at the links I have removed. Side by side.
Recordfreenow ( talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The link on 'who is a hindu' is irrelevant. It is a piece by a known Anti-Hindu campaigner.
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Do editors known much about this organization? I don't know much and would like to learn whether the assertions being made by this organization need to be considered seriously. I don't know if this is reliable source at all. I am leaving it there for now but need more information to make sure it is best to keep it. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Getting more and more shady. Doesn't seem to be a reliable neutral source with all this info. Lihaas ( talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The following edited info would be better suited to the World Vision article (maybe an india section) if need be. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Orissa_communal_violence&diff=236885081&oldid=236848444) I think Recordfreenow was right to remove it. Lihaas ( talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Trips:
Please be careful modifying the text from http://indianchristians.in. It has become almost a revert-war situation.
You have stated that WP:RS is a valid reason to delete this text, saying the reference is from a "christian site". Please read WP:RS carefully. Just because a site is 'Christian' DOES NOT mean it should be ignored. Unless you can prove that the site is an extremist or fringe source, please do not remove said text.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It is quite likely to be fabricated, suiting the interests of the organization. Trips ( talk) 11:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That is the website of the All India Christian Council (aicc). Some 5,000 christian organizations in india are members of the AICC. You are making this charge on absolutely no basis. It's hard to take that seriously.-- vvarkey ( talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It is best that we understand the scope of the article. I noticed that it could very well turn into a debate on Hindutva vs. Christian conversion. This is not beneficial to understand the events. If this needs to be stated then we can include a new section. If there is physical violence against Hindu community then by all means we should include that but let us commit to writing about the violence events. Thanks for your cooperation Recordfreenow ( talk) 04:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it accurate to establish this relationshio Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, comments like these would make the article change focus from violence to conversion. I personally do not agree with the work susceptible or to conversion by man. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The missionaries ran into opposition from the local
Brahmin community who opposed their work:
This could be relvant to historical understanding of dispute. However, is this a RS to be included? Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How is Ms staine's "forgiveness" relevant in this article. Again selectively using sentences will not make this article NPOV.- Bharatveer ( talk) 12:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lihass: i see you found the ref to Glady's unreliable. Fair enough. I accidentally thought it was from The Week, due to the ad on the top. I will get a better source (I've seen this all over the place). Cheers, thanks for looking out. -- vvarkey ( talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
See section on accuracy below. Jobxavier ( talk) 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
Conversion of citizens to another religion is an act of crime in Orissa ever since the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,1967 was passed by the Orissa legislature.reference: [ Frontline]. Nevertheless, Christian groups funded from abroad have been infiltrating into Orissa's impoverished tribal areas and carrying on proselytisation. Consequently, Christian population in areas like Kandhamal have increased from 2% to 22% in the past forty years. [4]
This is an incorrect reading of the reference. It is not illegal to convert or help conversion. Per the ref, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act prohibits the use of force or fraud for conversion.
Also, that's not the appropriate section for this kind of information.
I agree, this article is not an article on conversion but on communal violence. Please start a new section, if needed. Recordfreenow ( talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We know that allurements and coercion have been and are there. Shutting it out as Hindu canard is not neutral. Why cant we give comparative figures of Christian population in 1967 and 2001 in Orissa , in Khandmal? Jobxavier ( talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In the opening I removed "This article provides history of the major violence that has occurred between two communities. Kandhamal is amongst the most economically backward regions having experienced the brunt of violence in 2007-2008." The first part reads like an article. It should be more encyclopedic w/o a disclaimer. Second part refers to Kandhmal, when the article is about Orissa communal violence in general not only this last 2 months (i think it's left over before the merge) For the "citation needed" tag I removed the source b/c another was removed for a title "BAJRANG DAL: Loonies at Large." Come on, is that POV? Removed "Manmohan Singh belongs to the Congress Party which heads the Indian government" because it's not necessary. It already says he's PM. I added back "Sources in the police said the Maoists..." albeit elsewhere b/c it furthers the precedence. Also the dailypioneer link doesn't work. Lihaas ( talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please try to include this sections also in the article.- Bharatveer ( talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please add all information on the violence that has occured. As Lihaas pointed out. Be bold...but be careful. Recordfreenow ( talk) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Any discussion on Communalism in India after 1984 needs to be linked to Sonia Gandhi. It is only from her entry that Catholic aggressiveness has been to the fore. The mercenary Kerala Christians in Orissa have been militant only during the past ten years. Sonia became Leader of the Opposition in 1999.
Why is it that the Mallu presence in Orissa proselytisation is ignored? Look at the Bishops. That it is Mallus fighting against the indigenous is a track that needs to be explored.
The article is unreasonably slanted. It ought to be encyclopaedic truth; not Christian propaganda.
Jobxavier ( talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The scope of the article is communal violence in Orissa. So why does this need to be a conversation on conversion? Report the violence and designate appropriate section to convesion. I would suggest that you mention details at the section Forced conversion Be bold but be logical. Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Who are Dalit Christians? Does Christianity accept castes or Dalit-dom? Nobody outside India might understand all this. This needs to be explored in the Article because attempts by Converts to be deemed Dalits, is the core of the issue. Jobxavier ( talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected, the Page is back to being a proselytisation leaflet. Could someone add something about Hindu gods' being demons , now?
http://bprd.gov.in/index1.asp?linkid=639 Jobxavier ( talk) 08:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I find that one person is using three IDs and ensuring that this Page remains a missionary leaflet. I also find that he is able to arrange pro-missionary edits even when the Page is protected. This is all very sad. Jobxavier ( talk) 08:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Do not add. Delete the palmplet stuff. See in the Section on need for accuracy.
Jobxavier ( talk) 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Why are you putting back all the pro-Christian stuff without going through the section on accuracy? Jobxavier ( talk) 23:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The opening line of this article is currently: "Communal violence between Hindu and Christian groups in the state of Orissa, India, has increased over the past several years."
There is no suggestion in the article itself that Christians have perpetrated any of this violence. This line is therefore misleading as it implies that violence has been at least somewhat mutual. The facts need to accurately summarized in the lead.
Secondly, the very term Communal violence implies mutual aggression, which is not the case here. Therefore, both the title of the page, and the use of the term in the introductory sentence are themselves misleading and inaccurate. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
simply inaccurate here. I'd note that the WP page for Communal violence notes this aspect of its meaning. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, it is wrong if there is mention that this is only 1-sided in violence. violence is perpetrated by both sides. Also, as for the communal violence page, the definition says the word "refers to a situation where violence is perpetrated across ethnic lines, and victims are chosen based upon ethnic group membership." And that it "typically takes the form of mutual aggression." Lihaas ( talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The part about Steine's forgiveness etc helps only to make out that the foreigner was a monument of compassion, which is not true if you search more. His mission is Aussie funded. That forgiving Christian missionaries are being eliminated is not true enough even by insinuation. The long section about Steine's goodness is unnecessary. 116.68.97.102 ( talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Christmas violence: What made the Christians put up an Arch before a Hindu remple? Was it an act of provocation? And then the Swami who went there is attacked. This part needs to be re-written. Jobxavier ( talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
'This was followed by exchange of hot words between two groups. Within a few minutes a group of people who were stationed close by pounced on the members of Ambedkar Baniko Sangho with sticks, knives and guns. Two shots were fired into the air'. Who fired the shots? And 'pounced by-'?? This is not neutral tone.
The National Integration Council reference is about a Christian Committee, led by Dr John Dayal, member of the National Integration Council and Secretary General of the All India Christian Council. This is a biased body.
The HRW has always been anti-Hindu and internationally pro American and pro-Baptist.
That the National Minority Commission has only Minority community members in it is very relevant.
Jobxavier ( talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
HRW has always taken an anti-India, anti-Hindu atand and blindly pro-American Baptist stand in all international issues. That the NCM has only Minority Community members in it is very relevant.
It was not an NIC Report. Only that the controversial John Dayal was in it and that he was also a member of the NIC. Please see the link there. It says it was only a Church committee; not NIC.
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My issues with the inclusion of the information is that it essentially consists of 1) a partisan accusation and 2) an official denial. And neither is cited at all! Unless there is some further development, this should not be included. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is largely pro-Christian stuff in the Net. You are using them extensively without searching for the other side's versions. Why do you object to mentioning that the NMC is a pro-minority body of non-Hindus; yet quote extensively from it? Why do you insist that the John Dayal mission is an NIC committee, when the link itself denies it? Again, while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds.
Jobxavier ( talk) 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears Jobxavier and I are strongly disputing the appropriate direction of this article. Some edits I object to include:
Considering these issues, I am requesting attention from the Neutrality Project. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Gabrielle - Please read the NMC Report for Land grabs by Christians.
Jobxavier ( talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Historical background section is need to give the readers a background. Without the background the article is abrupt and looks like a promotional blog.-- ISKapoor ( talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not relevant to this page, it serves as Christian propaganda in the current context of the article. Trips ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It does not as nothing can be linked from the background section as a cause for the recent violence. Trips ( talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
All the background section is doing is giving an overview of the earliest missionaries and the typical xenophobia they exhibit after witnessing people and culture who their dogma does not agree with. This has nothing to do with inter-community violence and events that lead up to the recently seen violence on a larger scale in Orissa, which has alreaedy been covered. This section is currently not acceptable, though it can be changed to actually reflect the background of the violence, for example the murder of Swami Lakhsmananda. Trips ( talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The background must be kept. It reveals the mindset of the missionaries. This mindset sowed the seeds of the violence.
Jobxavier ( talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was uploaded by Recordfreenow, who claim that it was obtained from "All India Christian Council".
What is the evidence that it was indeed obtained from All India Christian Council? Is it on their website?
-- ISKapoor ( talk) 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All India Christian Council is Church body . It is not neutral. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw this dispute, contacted both of the involved editors, and am now going to read through the article. I would like to point out that I have no connection whatsoever to this article or to the people disputing the POV/NPOV of the article. I'll also point out that I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so there's no bias there, either. I'll post my comments shortly. Prince of Canada t | c 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay.. I've read through the article, and I can see one or two minor points that seem to violate NPOV, but nothing serious. The more pressing issue, I think, is to rewrite the article to WP standards. However... could each of you please, without referring to the other person or to past actions, list point-by-point where you feel there is too much POV? Thanks. Prince of Canada t | c 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
India is a secular socialist Republic according to its Constitution. That is why we Christians still survive there, even while killing Hindu leaders. India is not Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Vatican. Evangelisation is not permitted, though free-will convertions are. Yes, the Church uses covert and overt channels. The amounts are very huge if you know the actual value of such sums in India. The Pandhal's location is mentioned in the NMC Report. See given link. It is a non-Hindu body. It needs to be mentioned because half the Page is an NMC Report only. It is because it is anti-Hindu that it has been used here at all. Kindly explain the error of grammar. The Christians met the PM, appealed to Sonia Gandhi, the Pope, US Government etc also. Links to prove arm-twisting by the Church can be submitted. "You are the only person who is performing the noble duty of Jihad Akbar through MG. God is witness to the fact that there is no match in our community to your services and efforts. Please continue rendering your valuable service to the community like a silent warrior. Salik Dhampuri, United Muslim of India, New Delhi" [from the link to Milli} The Milli is a Jihad instrument? If so, can it be used as support? Kindly search Sonia Gandhi to know more. If need be, links can be supplied. Kindly read the Rediff link again. Many neutral links about Pana prosperuty. Read the NMC Report. He is respected by 80% of the population of the area. Please check what the Pope said about him. He was against conversion. There are neutral links to peove it. Religious freedom is not freedom to convert people. It may be that Christians stood around to be killed by Hindus? The NMC does not mention having checked Christian atrocity, though the Report mentions that two non-Christians were killed. It may be that your POV is making you miss things? Jobxavier ( talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have asked Jobxavier to comment as well. After he does (or if he declines to do so), I'll comment on what both of you have said. In the meantime, I'm going to clean up the broken/bare references and external links. Prince of Canada t | c 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the source for the claim of the Church that they can spread the word? where did they so argue? The link to their having so claimed is not available. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The mention about the Pandhal is in the NCM Report on the 2007 riots. This Report is given as a Link in the Page. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The Government Statutory Report on the Foreign donations received by NGOs etc is given in the Page as a Link. The amounts received by christians are huge in money terms; we may compare it with the number of christians in orissa. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The riots are about converting through allurement with foreign money. Minus foreign money, there would nt be any riot. I dont know if the govt report is irrelevant. Jobxavier ( talk) 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my responses to Gabrielthursday, below his comments. Jobxavier ( talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate the NPOV work being done, but agree there are other areas for improvement.
The one thing that really disturbs me is the pure hatred being spewed on these talk pages.
For eg., a few sections up, under "Undiscussed removals", to quote user JobXavier:
"while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds."
Totally unsubstantiated statements about a man brutally murdered. I do not have experience in dealing with this type of behaviour on Wikipedia. -- vvarkey ( talk) 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Shall we forget about foreign donations? Jobxavier ( talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Brutally etc is opinion. i am ready to agree with Vvarkey. Let us just caption the page Brutal Violence By Hindus against Christians. If sites about Steines are needed, they can be given. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier ( talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There were no eye-witnesses to 'burnt alive' etc. I suppose Lakshmanananda was dead before being riddled with bullets and smashed by grenades? Unpleasant truths need not be hatred. I am a Christian too, only that I know about how the missionaries actually operate. Jobxavier ( talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After a quick review of the article, I am raising the following concerns.
The parties actively involved in the article should be more cooperative. The article is supposed to give a balanced outlook between pro-Hindutva and pro-Christian POV, but I feel some edits are slightly slanted towards pro-Hindutva bias. It is best to avoid pro-Christian and pro-Hindutva sources as references and the article uses mainstream newspaper sources which is a good sign. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
With respect to image with burnt wounds [ See Image of Namrata]. I had made repeated citations in discussion area, as well as within TALK that the authenticity of the images was validated by articles within Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Tehelka. Even Wiki commons editors have accepted the image as reliable source. See the following links.
Please let other POV mention why it is not a valid inclusion. Thanks Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was taken from the Christian Council. The pic was inserted on that site 24 hours after violence started when there were no communication facilities in the riot area. Further, what in Heavens is the relevance of the pic? Jobxavier ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Its relevance as a textbook propaganda tool. Something that you will find on brochures of Hinduism Christian organizations distribute. Trips ( talk) 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above explanation. Recordfreenow ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Using gory pics of children for propaganda is a violation of UN and WHO rules. Jobxavier ( talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for fixing this page.
Thoughts? Prince of Canada t | c 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea at the outset. In any event I have reduced my contributions a lot since past 10 days and, I guess, it may work for others to do the same. The only concern is that there has been a lot of research that has been undertaken and it may be a challenge to pursue those for a re-write. Also, a lot of reliable source citations have been removed. In any event, I am realizing that this is hard work and so I am all for your suggestion. I too would like to contribute at other places. Thanks for your inputs. Recordfreenow ( talk) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the effort. -- vvarkey ( talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Trips ( talk) 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Thank you for your good faith edit to Orissa religious violence. There has been a seemingly endless series of accusations of POV from various editors to the article, which is why the tag was there. We are (I only became involved due to seeing the issue via Huggle) inching closer and closer to resolution. I hope you won't be offended, but I will restore the tag to the article; removing it, I think, will serve only to fan the flames on both sides. I hope that is okay with you? Prince of Canada t | c 05:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please enlighten me as to how the allegedly Christian girl's pic from the Christian site is essential for encyclopedic truth? Could Recordfree obtain a pic of the raped nun?
Jobxavier ( talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an unacceptable and uncivilized method of discourse engaged by Jobxavier, and it is typical of the tone he uses in these talk pages. I have just made a Wikiquette complaint on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jobxavier -- vvarkey ( talk) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This has been referred to the mediators. I agree that NPOV needs to be addressed, but I believe this editor should be taken to task for repeatedly making uncivil comments as well. -- vvarkey ( talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I repeat tht if an allegedly burned and miraculously healed girl's pic that appeared a day after the violence began is encyclopedic truth, the raped nuns' pics should also be here.
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I urge that the Page be re-written by a non-priest and a non- Christian [unlike VVarkey and Recordfree]
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
^ "The clout of Sonia Gandhi". Ivarta.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Is this a relable source? Recordfreenow ( talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I urge the cabal who blow up the disputed section to stop your total destruction of contents and use refimprove section tag, if you really want to add. -- Googlean ( talk) 05:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
As said before this POV material will not stand. Its referenced but it provides no background to the actual events. Defend it or it will be removed. Trips ( talk) 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The background section is equivalent to me posting a referenced section on forced conversion in India to this article, it is irrelevant. No progress is being made. Trips ( talk) 12:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the neutral editor proposal, but where is he/she?. Trips ( talk) 12:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of you may have already noticed that this article is now fully protected from editing. I was forced to request it, as the MedCab isn't working (yet), and the article is still subject to edit wars. I made a proposal above for having the article rewritten by an uninvolved third party. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to go ahead with that now. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Outdent - Whether the edits in question are edit-warring or vandalism isn't particularly important. 3RR complaints should be made against the individuals in question- however, looking at the history, we don't even have a recent 3RR violation that I can see. The situation is under control, in my view, and the edit-warring, if we want to call it that, is on the mild side. The complete block means that no edits, constructive or not can be made, and this article needs a lot of work. I've requested an unblock. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I find that POV edits have been done even while protected... Jobxavier ( talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In my view, the links between the events on this page are fairly indirect. In my view, we should split the page up, into 3 main articles- the Graham Staines information should be at his page; 2007 Christmas religious violence in Orissa and 2008 Religious violence in Orissa. No doubt the titles can be improved. The main page for this information should be Anti-Christian violence in India- the subpages should deal with the discrete incidents, rather than geographic areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielthursday ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Christian Violence?? I am happy that the Article is protected and is being re-written. I suggest to those with NPOV to go back to the Article as written originally by Recordfreenow. I am happy that I, a pious Christian myself, have been able to contribute to its being transformed from a Missonary pamphlet. The history of the Article reveals why violence happens in Orissa. If there is this much violence in a Wiki article on the subject, how much might these people be actually doing in Orissa!! Jobxavier ( talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is not just in Orissa. It is happening to Bihar, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. So i think 2008 violence against Christians or something like that. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right. In Orissa, they tried to kill the Swami nine times; and succeeded the 10th time. In Karnataka, they have been circulating vulgar pamphlets about Hindu gods for 3 years and now have finally provoked the Hindus. In Kerala, the suspects have told the Police that they were paid to do it by elements within the Church itself to drive attention away from the rcent sex and money scandals about the Church. The priest socks have already done an anti-Christian violence Article in Wiki on 27th Sep. They know not what they do.... Jobxavier ( talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Editors and Admins, Please take note of the comments above by this user. They are provocative and not in good faith. In short, not objective. Recordfreenow ( talk) 06:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Each of my statements is sourced NPOV. I can also source statements by two RCC Bishops of Kerala that violence is due to conversion by fringe evangelical outfits of dubious origins.
Jobxavier ( talk) 12:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Admins, this user Jobxavier continues to make bigoted statements and personal attacks on other editors. I referred the user to Wikiquette, but they referred it back here because of the Dispute Resolution. Could you please make sure that civility is maintained on these pages while the Dispute Resolution is ongoing? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The comments made by VVarkey are unsubstantiated. They are extremely uncivil. He has been trying this tactic against anyone that does not agree with his POV. He needs to be suitably counselled. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am adding articles in the talk page, as the admins are having a difficult managing users which oppose and don't contribute and not allowing editors who are BOLD about writing. Recordfreenow ( talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/30/stories/2008093054120400.htm first. Jobxavier ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you Jobxavier, this is a good news. I am glad to read it. Appreciate your contribution. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has been following this discussion - this is what I notice. The violence is complex....that doesn't DISPROVE the fact that there was violence...which is what the article is about.
Jobxavier - I have found your language to be the most uncivil and biased here, very interesting that you are complaining!!! I also saw you bringing religion in and personally attacking other editors over their religion. Open question to ANY admin - isn't that a violation of some WIKI policy? And if so how the user being allowed to post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by pk1122 ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
These edit wars are on-going. I've reprotected the article for a few days. Please use this "war-free" time to initiate some discussion, or at least try to resolve the discussion that has been on-going. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Half the Article is made up of the NMC Report. Such sourcing is ridiculous. The NMC is a non-Hindu body. It has no administrative powers. In India, there are many such government Commissions to satisfy each pressure group. India is not an Islamic country,r Israel or the Vatican. We are a democracy. However, the NPOV part of the NMC Report slone is being objected to by Recordfreenow.
Jobxavier ( talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier ( talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In India, they have Government Commissions for every group. These are not taken seriously even by the Government. Each Commission submits POV reports to protect the group that it is named after. The NMC is a body with only non-Hindu members. Taking its findings as unbiased truth and using them to make up half of the article is extreme POV. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am no Hindu and am no Hinduist. But I am against Christian propaganda in WP. Recordfree's suggestion that a Christian should necessarily be pro=missionary is unfortunate. I am only for truth and neutrality. Please see Bishops' views here. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008093054120400.htm&date=2008/09/30/&prd=th& Jobxavier ( talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, as I have read more of the policy, it is clear that NCM is not an original research as per WP:OR. It is a RS precisely because from the editor's perspective it is being referred. BTW Vvarkey... nice signature for someone who always forgets to sign :) Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The following statement "The Panas have converted to Christianity in large numbers and prospered financially " is found nowhere in the referenced material. This is not true and not statistics has being referenced. I like to remove this misleading statement. If you have objections, please let us know why.
-- Indiancrusader ( talk) 00:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This article needs sources that comply with WP:RS & also its obvious povs removed.- Bharatveer ( talk) 08:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dear Bharatveer, please read the report from NCM, a government entity. You cannot get a better POV. Also, each statemet is refered. Can you please indicate which sources do not comply with WP standard? Recordfreenow ( talk) 14:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
i believe i've fixed the POV, so i'm removing the tag. if you feel it should remain, please list specifiv pov violations so they can be fixed. thanks. -- vvarkey ( talk) 09:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Tripping Nambiar - if you feel there is POV violation, please list specific instances so they can be fixed. Thanks. Also, the ref you added does not match the text you added to Christmas violence. -- vvarkey ( talk) 11:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
The article as it stands almost entirely confirms with the views of Christian community. Views of the Hindu community/groups should be added to balance the article.-- Vikramsingh ( talk) 01:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, if the writing is on-the-wall for VHP then how am I supposed to build a NPOV? There is unequivical evidence in VHP's involvement in the violence. I would love to find information that proves contrary to the fact. Recordfreenow ( talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The NMC is governmental; but it has only Minority members. This sway is relevant and ought to be mentioned. Jobxavier ( talk) 02:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think this page should be merged with 2008 Orissa violence. It clears up the notability for that article as well. Perhaps a new name can be "Communal violence in Orissa" or "2007-2008 Orissa violence" (albeit the latter might change). What do others feel? Lihaas ( talk) 10:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be "Communal violence in Orissa". having the year in the name does not make sense anymore. the incident from 1999 should also be included. I hear what recordfreenow is saying about search engines, but not sure that should be out concern. anyways, is'nt it possible for the old title to point to the new page? not sure how that works.-- vvarkey ( talk) 01:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I have corrected as per the source cited.- Bharatveer ( talk) 08:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Lihaas, please see my response to each section. Thanks. Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC) the picture with the caption "The secular fabric of India is in flames during Orissa communal violence" is a little out place. It puts the page out of whack. in like with other wikipages, perhaps it would be better to move it to the top right so the contents table can be where the picture is.
And while we're at it: "The secular fabric of India is in flames during Orissa communal violence" This caption is a little POV too (not religious pov, but secular liberal POV). Why the editorial-like comment of the "secular fabric." Perhaps something like "Violence and burining during the ..."
Furthermore, what's the wording for the picture that says "Christian girl who suffered during August 2008 violence in Orissa" How do we know for certainty its a christian girl? Perhaps one can say "victim of communal rioting" (now, don't get me wrong, the other picture of the burned church is fair enough, there's a cross and it's proof as it is) Lihaas ( talk) 16:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Lihaas, Within the section WP:EL. Please indicate which aspects under section "Links normally to be avoided" do not qualify under policy? All the external links are relevant for the article. Please discuss before random decisions to delete. These are efforts being put. You are welcome to add any reliable sources that qualify. Thank you very much for your cooperation. Recordfreenow ( talk) 16:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright Lihaas, let's look at the links I have removed. Side by side.
Recordfreenow ( talk) 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The link on 'who is a hindu' is irrelevant. It is a piece by a known Anti-Hindu campaigner.
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Do editors known much about this organization? I don't know much and would like to learn whether the assertions being made by this organization need to be considered seriously. I don't know if this is reliable source at all. I am leaving it there for now but need more information to make sure it is best to keep it. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Getting more and more shady. Doesn't seem to be a reliable neutral source with all this info. Lihaas ( talk) 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The following edited info would be better suited to the World Vision article (maybe an india section) if need be. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Orissa_communal_violence&diff=236885081&oldid=236848444) I think Recordfreenow was right to remove it. Lihaas ( talk) 17:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Trips:
Please be careful modifying the text from http://indianchristians.in. It has become almost a revert-war situation.
You have stated that WP:RS is a valid reason to delete this text, saying the reference is from a "christian site". Please read WP:RS carefully. Just because a site is 'Christian' DOES NOT mean it should be ignored. Unless you can prove that the site is an extremist or fringe source, please do not remove said text.
Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey ( talk • contribs) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
It is quite likely to be fabricated, suiting the interests of the organization. Trips ( talk) 11:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
That is the website of the All India Christian Council (aicc). Some 5,000 christian organizations in india are members of the AICC. You are making this charge on absolutely no basis. It's hard to take that seriously.-- vvarkey ( talk) 14:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
It is best that we understand the scope of the article. I noticed that it could very well turn into a debate on Hindutva vs. Christian conversion. This is not beneficial to understand the events. If this needs to be stated then we can include a new section. If there is physical violence against Hindu community then by all means we should include that but let us commit to writing about the violence events. Thanks for your cooperation Recordfreenow ( talk) 04:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it accurate to establish this relationshio Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, comments like these would make the article change focus from violence to conversion. I personally do not agree with the work susceptible or to conversion by man. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The missionaries ran into opposition from the local
Brahmin community who opposed their work:
This could be relvant to historical understanding of dispute. However, is this a RS to be included? Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this relevant to the Orissa communal violence. If so, can the editor please build the context to make it relevant for the current scenario? This can be done by establishing a relationship as well. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How is Ms staine's "forgiveness" relevant in this article. Again selectively using sentences will not make this article NPOV.- Bharatveer ( talk) 12:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Lihass: i see you found the ref to Glady's unreliable. Fair enough. I accidentally thought it was from The Week, due to the ad on the top. I will get a better source (I've seen this all over the place). Cheers, thanks for looking out. -- vvarkey ( talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
See section on accuracy below. Jobxavier ( talk) 23:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I removed the following text:
Conversion of citizens to another religion is an act of crime in Orissa ever since the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act,1967 was passed by the Orissa legislature.reference: [ Frontline]. Nevertheless, Christian groups funded from abroad have been infiltrating into Orissa's impoverished tribal areas and carrying on proselytisation. Consequently, Christian population in areas like Kandhamal have increased from 2% to 22% in the past forty years. [4]
This is an incorrect reading of the reference. It is not illegal to convert or help conversion. Per the ref, the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act prohibits the use of force or fraud for conversion.
Also, that's not the appropriate section for this kind of information.
I agree, this article is not an article on conversion but on communal violence. Please start a new section, if needed. Recordfreenow ( talk) 14:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
We know that allurements and coercion have been and are there. Shutting it out as Hindu canard is not neutral. Why cant we give comparative figures of Christian population in 1967 and 2001 in Orissa , in Khandmal? Jobxavier ( talk) 02:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
In the opening I removed "This article provides history of the major violence that has occurred between two communities. Kandhamal is amongst the most economically backward regions having experienced the brunt of violence in 2007-2008." The first part reads like an article. It should be more encyclopedic w/o a disclaimer. Second part refers to Kandhmal, when the article is about Orissa communal violence in general not only this last 2 months (i think it's left over before the merge) For the "citation needed" tag I removed the source b/c another was removed for a title "BAJRANG DAL: Loonies at Large." Come on, is that POV? Removed "Manmohan Singh belongs to the Congress Party which heads the Indian government" because it's not necessary. It already says he's PM. I added back "Sources in the police said the Maoists..." albeit elsewhere b/c it furthers the precedence. Also the dailypioneer link doesn't work. Lihaas ( talk) 18:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please try to include this sections also in the article.- Bharatveer ( talk) 05:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please add all information on the violence that has occured. As Lihaas pointed out. Be bold...but be careful. Recordfreenow ( talk) 11:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Any discussion on Communalism in India after 1984 needs to be linked to Sonia Gandhi. It is only from her entry that Catholic aggressiveness has been to the fore. The mercenary Kerala Christians in Orissa have been militant only during the past ten years. Sonia became Leader of the Opposition in 1999.
Why is it that the Mallu presence in Orissa proselytisation is ignored? Look at the Bishops. That it is Mallus fighting against the indigenous is a track that needs to be explored.
The article is unreasonably slanted. It ought to be encyclopaedic truth; not Christian propaganda.
Jobxavier ( talk) 01:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The scope of the article is communal violence in Orissa. So why does this need to be a conversation on conversion? Report the violence and designate appropriate section to convesion. I would suggest that you mention details at the section Forced conversion Be bold but be logical. Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Who are Dalit Christians? Does Christianity accept castes or Dalit-dom? Nobody outside India might understand all this. This needs to be explored in the Article because attempts by Converts to be deemed Dalits, is the core of the issue. Jobxavier ( talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected, the Page is back to being a proselytisation leaflet. Could someone add something about Hindu gods' being demons , now?
http://bprd.gov.in/index1.asp?linkid=639 Jobxavier ( talk) 08:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I find that one person is using three IDs and ensuring that this Page remains a missionary leaflet. I also find that he is able to arrange pro-missionary edits even when the Page is protected. This is all very sad. Jobxavier ( talk) 08:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Do not add. Delete the palmplet stuff. See in the Section on need for accuracy.
Jobxavier ( talk) 22:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Why are you putting back all the pro-Christian stuff without going through the section on accuracy? Jobxavier ( talk) 23:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The opening line of this article is currently: "Communal violence between Hindu and Christian groups in the state of Orissa, India, has increased over the past several years."
There is no suggestion in the article itself that Christians have perpetrated any of this violence. This line is therefore misleading as it implies that violence has been at least somewhat mutual. The facts need to accurately summarized in the lead.
Secondly, the very term Communal violence implies mutual aggression, which is not the case here. Therefore, both the title of the page, and the use of the term in the introductory sentence are themselves misleading and inaccurate. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 04:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
simply inaccurate here. I'd note that the WP page for Communal violence notes this aspect of its meaning. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 05:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, it is wrong if there is mention that this is only 1-sided in violence. violence is perpetrated by both sides. Also, as for the communal violence page, the definition says the word "refers to a situation where violence is perpetrated across ethnic lines, and victims are chosen based upon ethnic group membership." And that it "typically takes the form of mutual aggression." Lihaas ( talk) 17:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The part about Steine's forgiveness etc helps only to make out that the foreigner was a monument of compassion, which is not true if you search more. His mission is Aussie funded. That forgiving Christian missionaries are being eliminated is not true enough even by insinuation. The long section about Steine's goodness is unnecessary. 116.68.97.102 ( talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Christmas violence: What made the Christians put up an Arch before a Hindu remple? Was it an act of provocation? And then the Swami who went there is attacked. This part needs to be re-written. Jobxavier ( talk) 21:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
'This was followed by exchange of hot words between two groups. Within a few minutes a group of people who were stationed close by pounced on the members of Ambedkar Baniko Sangho with sticks, knives and guns. Two shots were fired into the air'. Who fired the shots? And 'pounced by-'?? This is not neutral tone.
The National Integration Council reference is about a Christian Committee, led by Dr John Dayal, member of the National Integration Council and Secretary General of the All India Christian Council. This is a biased body.
The HRW has always been anti-Hindu and internationally pro American and pro-Baptist.
That the National Minority Commission has only Minority community members in it is very relevant.
Jobxavier ( talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
HRW has always taken an anti-India, anti-Hindu atand and blindly pro-American Baptist stand in all international issues. That the NCM has only Minority Community members in it is very relevant.
It was not an NIC Report. Only that the controversial John Dayal was in it and that he was also a member of the NIC. Please see the link there. It says it was only a Church committee; not NIC.
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
My issues with the inclusion of the information is that it essentially consists of 1) a partisan accusation and 2) an official denial. And neither is cited at all! Unless there is some further development, this should not be included. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 20:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
There is largely pro-Christian stuff in the Net. You are using them extensively without searching for the other side's versions. Why do you object to mentioning that the NMC is a pro-minority body of non-Hindus; yet quote extensively from it? Why do you insist that the John Dayal mission is an NIC committee, when the link itself denies it? Again, while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds.
Jobxavier ( talk) 08:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, it appears Jobxavier and I are strongly disputing the appropriate direction of this article. Some edits I object to include:
Considering these issues, I am requesting attention from the Neutrality Project. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 12:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Gabrielle - Please read the NMC Report for Land grabs by Christians.
Jobxavier ( talk) 00:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The Historical background section is need to give the readers a background. Without the background the article is abrupt and looks like a promotional blog.-- ISKapoor ( talk) 22:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is not relevant to this page, it serves as Christian propaganda in the current context of the article. Trips ( talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
It does not as nothing can be linked from the background section as a cause for the recent violence. Trips ( talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
All the background section is doing is giving an overview of the earliest missionaries and the typical xenophobia they exhibit after witnessing people and culture who their dogma does not agree with. This has nothing to do with inter-community violence and events that lead up to the recently seen violence on a larger scale in Orissa, which has alreaedy been covered. This section is currently not acceptable, though it can be changed to actually reflect the background of the violence, for example the murder of Swami Lakhsmananda. Trips ( talk) 01:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The background must be kept. It reveals the mindset of the missionaries. This mindset sowed the seeds of the violence.
Jobxavier ( talk) 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was uploaded by Recordfreenow, who claim that it was obtained from "All India Christian Council".
What is the evidence that it was indeed obtained from All India Christian Council? Is it on their website?
-- ISKapoor ( talk) 22:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All India Christian Council is Church body . It is not neutral. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw this dispute, contacted both of the involved editors, and am now going to read through the article. I would like to point out that I have no connection whatsoever to this article or to the people disputing the POV/NPOV of the article. I'll also point out that I'm neither Christian nor Hindu, so there's no bias there, either. I'll post my comments shortly. Prince of Canada t | c 09:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay.. I've read through the article, and I can see one or two minor points that seem to violate NPOV, but nothing serious. The more pressing issue, I think, is to rewrite the article to WP standards. However... could each of you please, without referring to the other person or to past actions, list point-by-point where you feel there is too much POV? Thanks. Prince of Canada t | c 21:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
India is a secular socialist Republic according to its Constitution. That is why we Christians still survive there, even while killing Hindu leaders. India is not Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Vatican. Evangelisation is not permitted, though free-will convertions are. Yes, the Church uses covert and overt channels. The amounts are very huge if you know the actual value of such sums in India. The Pandhal's location is mentioned in the NMC Report. See given link. It is a non-Hindu body. It needs to be mentioned because half the Page is an NMC Report only. It is because it is anti-Hindu that it has been used here at all. Kindly explain the error of grammar. The Christians met the PM, appealed to Sonia Gandhi, the Pope, US Government etc also. Links to prove arm-twisting by the Church can be submitted. "You are the only person who is performing the noble duty of Jihad Akbar through MG. God is witness to the fact that there is no match in our community to your services and efforts. Please continue rendering your valuable service to the community like a silent warrior. Salik Dhampuri, United Muslim of India, New Delhi" [from the link to Milli} The Milli is a Jihad instrument? If so, can it be used as support? Kindly search Sonia Gandhi to know more. If need be, links can be supplied. Kindly read the Rediff link again. Many neutral links about Pana prosperuty. Read the NMC Report. He is respected by 80% of the population of the area. Please check what the Pope said about him. He was against conversion. There are neutral links to peove it. Religious freedom is not freedom to convert people. It may be that Christians stood around to be killed by Hindus? The NMC does not mention having checked Christian atrocity, though the Report mentions that two non-Christians were killed. It may be that your POV is making you miss things? Jobxavier ( talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have asked Jobxavier to comment as well. After he does (or if he declines to do so), I'll comment on what both of you have said. In the meantime, I'm going to clean up the broken/bare references and external links. Prince of Canada t | c 05:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the source for the claim of the Church that they can spread the word? where did they so argue? The link to their having so claimed is not available. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The mention about the Pandhal is in the NCM Report on the 2007 riots. This Report is given as a Link in the Page. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The Government Statutory Report on the Foreign donations received by NGOs etc is given in the Page as a Link. The amounts received by christians are huge in money terms; we may compare it with the number of christians in orissa. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
The riots are about converting through allurement with foreign money. Minus foreign money, there would nt be any riot. I dont know if the govt report is irrelevant. Jobxavier ( talk) 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Please see my responses to Gabrielthursday, below his comments. Jobxavier ( talk) 23:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I really appreciate the NPOV work being done, but agree there are other areas for improvement.
The one thing that really disturbs me is the pure hatred being spewed on these talk pages.
For eg., a few sections up, under "Undiscussed removals", to quote user JobXavier:
"while you go on adding sob-stories about Christian suffering, you do not mention the 10 attacks on the Swami with equal emphasis. Steines has a lot about him in the Net, including stuff about his paedophilia and religious intolerance. His wife about the forgiveness is mere charade because she only wants to continue in India to enjoy the Charity funds."
Totally unsubstantiated statements about a man brutally murdered. I do not have experience in dealing with this type of behaviour on Wikipedia. -- vvarkey ( talk) 10:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Shall we forget about foreign donations? Jobxavier ( talk) 18:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Brutally etc is opinion. i am ready to agree with Vvarkey. Let us just caption the page Brutal Violence By Hindus against Christians. If sites about Steines are needed, they can be given. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier ( talk) 18:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
There were no eye-witnesses to 'burnt alive' etc. I suppose Lakshmanananda was dead before being riddled with bullets and smashed by grenades? Unpleasant truths need not be hatred. I am a Christian too, only that I know about how the missionaries actually operate. Jobxavier ( talk) 23:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
After a quick review of the article, I am raising the following concerns.
The parties actively involved in the article should be more cooperative. The article is supposed to give a balanced outlook between pro-Hindutva and pro-Christian POV, but I feel some edits are slightly slanted towards pro-Hindutva bias. It is best to avoid pro-Christian and pro-Hindutva sources as references and the article uses mainstream newspaper sources which is a good sign. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
With respect to image with burnt wounds [ See Image of Namrata]. I had made repeated citations in discussion area, as well as within TALK that the authenticity of the images was validated by articles within Reuters, Wall Street Journal and Tehelka. Even Wiki commons editors have accepted the image as reliable source. See the following links.
Please let other POV mention why it is not a valid inclusion. Thanks Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The image was taken from the Christian Council. The pic was inserted on that site 24 hours after violence started when there were no communication facilities in the riot area. Further, what in Heavens is the relevance of the pic? Jobxavier ( talk) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Its relevance as a textbook propaganda tool. Something that you will find on brochures of Hinduism Christian organizations distribute. Trips ( talk) 06:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Please read the above explanation. Recordfreenow ( talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Using gory pics of children for propaganda is a violation of UN and WHO rules. Jobxavier ( talk) 02:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I have a suggestion for fixing this page.
Thoughts? Prince of Canada t | c 17:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea at the outset. In any event I have reduced my contributions a lot since past 10 days and, I guess, it may work for others to do the same. The only concern is that there has been a lot of research that has been undertaken and it may be a challenge to pursue those for a re-write. Also, a lot of reliable source citations have been removed. In any event, I am realizing that this is hard work and so I am all for your suggestion. I too would like to contribute at other places. Thanks for your inputs. Recordfreenow ( talk) 18:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thanks for all the effort. -- vvarkey ( talk) 18:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. Trips ( talk) 06:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hiya. Thank you for your good faith edit to Orissa religious violence. There has been a seemingly endless series of accusations of POV from various editors to the article, which is why the tag was there. We are (I only became involved due to seeing the issue via Huggle) inching closer and closer to resolution. I hope you won't be offended, but I will restore the tag to the article; removing it, I think, will serve only to fan the flames on both sides. I hope that is okay with you? Prince of Canada t | c 05:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Would someone please enlighten me as to how the allegedly Christian girl's pic from the Christian site is essential for encyclopedic truth? Could Recordfree obtain a pic of the raped nun?
Jobxavier ( talk) 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This is an unacceptable and uncivilized method of discourse engaged by Jobxavier, and it is typical of the tone he uses in these talk pages. I have just made a Wikiquette complaint on this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Jobxavier -- vvarkey ( talk) 21:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
This has been referred to the mediators. I agree that NPOV needs to be addressed, but I believe this editor should be taken to task for repeatedly making uncivil comments as well. -- vvarkey ( talk) 22:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I repeat tht if an allegedly burned and miraculously healed girl's pic that appeared a day after the violence began is encyclopedic truth, the raped nuns' pics should also be here.
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I urge that the Page be re-written by a non-priest and a non- Christian [unlike VVarkey and Recordfree]
Jobxavier ( talk) 23:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
^ "The clout of Sonia Gandhi". Ivarta.com. Retrieved on 2008-09-18. Is this a relable source? Recordfreenow ( talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I urge the cabal who blow up the disputed section to stop your total destruction of contents and use refimprove section tag, if you really want to add. -- Googlean ( talk) 05:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
As said before this POV material will not stand. Its referenced but it provides no background to the actual events. Defend it or it will be removed. Trips ( talk) 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
The background section is equivalent to me posting a referenced section on forced conversion in India to this article, it is irrelevant. No progress is being made. Trips ( talk) 12:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with the neutral editor proposal, but where is he/she?. Trips ( talk) 12:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Many of you may have already noticed that this article is now fully protected from editing. I was forced to request it, as the MedCab isn't working (yet), and the article is still subject to edit wars. I made a proposal above for having the article rewritten by an uninvolved third party. Unless there are any objections, I'm going to go ahead with that now. Cheers. Prince of Canada t | c 02:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Outdent - Whether the edits in question are edit-warring or vandalism isn't particularly important. 3RR complaints should be made against the individuals in question- however, looking at the history, we don't even have a recent 3RR violation that I can see. The situation is under control, in my view, and the edit-warring, if we want to call it that, is on the mild side. The complete block means that no edits, constructive or not can be made, and this article needs a lot of work. I've requested an unblock. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 10:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
I find that POV edits have been done even while protected... Jobxavier ( talk) 21:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
In my view, the links between the events on this page are fairly indirect. In my view, we should split the page up, into 3 main articles- the Graham Staines information should be at his page; 2007 Christmas religious violence in Orissa and 2008 Religious violence in Orissa. No doubt the titles can be improved. The main page for this information should be Anti-Christian violence in India- the subpages should deal with the discrete incidents, rather than geographic areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabrielthursday ( talk • contribs) 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Christian Violence?? I am happy that the Article is protected and is being re-written. I suggest to those with NPOV to go back to the Article as written originally by Recordfreenow. I am happy that I, a pious Christian myself, have been able to contribute to its being transformed from a Missonary pamphlet. The history of the Article reveals why violence happens in Orissa. If there is this much violence in a Wiki article on the subject, how much might these people be actually doing in Orissa!! Jobxavier ( talk) 17:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually it is not just in Orissa. It is happening to Bihar, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. So i think 2008 violence against Christians or something like that. -- SkyWalker ( talk) 17:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right. In Orissa, they tried to kill the Swami nine times; and succeeded the 10th time. In Karnataka, they have been circulating vulgar pamphlets about Hindu gods for 3 years and now have finally provoked the Hindus. In Kerala, the suspects have told the Police that they were paid to do it by elements within the Church itself to drive attention away from the rcent sex and money scandals about the Church. The priest socks have already done an anti-Christian violence Article in Wiki on 27th Sep. They know not what they do.... Jobxavier ( talk) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Editors and Admins, Please take note of the comments above by this user. They are provocative and not in good faith. In short, not objective. Recordfreenow ( talk) 06:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Each of my statements is sourced NPOV. I can also source statements by two RCC Bishops of Kerala that violence is due to conversion by fringe evangelical outfits of dubious origins.
Jobxavier ( talk) 12:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Admins, this user Jobxavier continues to make bigoted statements and personal attacks on other editors. I referred the user to Wikiquette, but they referred it back here because of the Dispute Resolution. Could you please make sure that civility is maintained on these pages while the Dispute Resolution is ongoing? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvarkey ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The comments made by VVarkey are unsubstantiated. They are extremely uncivil. He has been trying this tactic against anyone that does not agree with his POV. He needs to be suitably counselled. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am adding articles in the talk page, as the admins are having a difficult managing users which oppose and don't contribute and not allowing editors who are BOLD about writing. Recordfreenow ( talk) 16:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
See http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/30/stories/2008093054120400.htm first. Jobxavier ( talk) 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Thank you Jobxavier, this is a good news. I am glad to read it. Appreciate your contribution. Recordfreenow ( talk) 08:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
As someone who has been following this discussion - this is what I notice. The violence is complex....that doesn't DISPROVE the fact that there was violence...which is what the article is about.
Jobxavier - I have found your language to be the most uncivil and biased here, very interesting that you are complaining!!! I also saw you bringing religion in and personally attacking other editors over their religion. Open question to ANY admin - isn't that a violation of some WIKI policy? And if so how the user being allowed to post? —Preceding unsigned comment added by pk1122 ( talk • contribs) 04:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
These edit wars are on-going. I've reprotected the article for a few days. Please use this "war-free" time to initiate some discussion, or at least try to resolve the discussion that has been on-going. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Half the Article is made up of the NMC Report. Such sourcing is ridiculous. The NMC is a non-Hindu body. It has no administrative powers. In India, there are many such government Commissions to satisfy each pressure group. India is not an Islamic country,r Israel or the Vatican. We are a democracy. However, the NPOV part of the NMC Report slone is being objected to by Recordfreenow.
Jobxavier ( talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Jobxavier ( talk) 12:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
In India, they have Government Commissions for every group. These are not taken seriously even by the Government. Each Commission submits POV reports to protect the group that it is named after. The NMC is a body with only non-Hindu members. Taking its findings as unbiased truth and using them to make up half of the article is extreme POV. Jobxavier ( talk) 18:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I am no Hindu and am no Hinduist. But I am against Christian propaganda in WP. Recordfree's suggestion that a Christian should necessarily be pro=missionary is unfortunate. I am only for truth and neutrality. Please see Bishops' views here. http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2008093054120400.htm&date=2008/09/30/&prd=th& Jobxavier ( talk) 12:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Regardless, as I have read more of the policy, it is clear that NCM is not an original research as per WP:OR. It is a RS precisely because from the editor's perspective it is being referred. BTW Vvarkey... nice signature for someone who always forgets to sign :) Recordfreenow ( talk) 17:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)